Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2022 (10) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... by the Customs Excise And Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai rejecting Petitioner's Misc. Application bearing No.85896 of 2018. 2. Since affidavit in reply has been filed, by consent, we have decided to dispose of this Petition at this stage itself. 3. Petitioner was engaged in the manufacture and selling of various electrical/electronic goods which used to be sold to various domestic buyers and held a small scale industries license in Daman. 4. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence carried out certain investigation into the imports of Automatic Teller Machines against various parties, and in the course of investigation, searched business and residential premises of Petitioner and its Director and seized certain doc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner's averment that they did not have notice of hearing before CESTAT, has not been denied. Of-course we need to note that this was not one of the grounds that was raised by Petitioner in the Misc. Application. 9. In the Misc. Application, Petitioner sought rectification of order dated 14th October 2017 on the ground, inter-alia, that Petitioner's grounds in the Appeal have not been recorded or even considered. The order does not even mention in the cause title, Petitioner's Appeal was heard and there was no independent findings recorded by Tribunal against Petitioner. Petitioner also pointed out to the Tribunal that in the final order it is recorded that Petitioner has not been represented. 10. Mr. Raichandani submitted that in the....